Black Sea Fleet vs Turkish Navy

What would stop them from theoretically integrating the Uran into the UKSK launch cell too? It's shorter, lighter and narrower than the Klub and Onyx; so it shouldn't be a problem with a little modification.

flamming_python wrote:What would stop them from theoretically integrating the Uran into the UKSK launch cell too? It's shorter, lighter and narrower than the Klub and Onyx; so it shouldn't be a problem with a little modification.

What's the point of doing that?Keep the Kalibr or Yakhont/Onyx in the UKSK. They are more potent than the smaller Uran.

Having a special tube for Uran or Uranium, would be the complete assimilation of all Russian anti ship missiles into the UKSK design... except of course the Granit and Vulkan.

It would mean all Russian ships and boats could be fitted with one and only one type of missile launcher that can deal with ships, Subs, and land targets.

For the ship it means a much wider range and choice of weapons can be used from her standard tubes.

For the missile it means that it can be deployed to any Russian port and rapidly fitted to any Russian vessel.

Having a dedicated Kalibr launcher means only vessels fitted with that launcher can attack land targets... only specific Soviet Subs had missiles able to hit land targets and none of them were conventionally armed.

New Russian ships and subs will have the choice of a range of missiles for the purpose of land attack, anti ship use, or anti sub use.

Adding Uran to UKSK makes Uran more widely usable without modification, and it makes UKSK more capable as well as the ships that use it.

Because of the size difference you could probably fit 8 Uran missiles in a single UKSK tube... which makes things rather more flexible.

Of course Uran is a light multi use anti ship missile including air launched models. I remember early on there were mini Urans proposed for lighter aircraft like Ka-226T with a reduced weight and range as a similar weapon to the British Sea Skua. Something that could be used by border patrol without nuking a non cooperative vessel. A 25-50kg warhead being the key here.

_________________“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

In the black sea , definitively Turkey but also all NATO navies combined if choose to suicide

1) The easiest safest and boring and most expensive wayRussia just launch a couple of hundred of Oniks ,Calibr from Sochi coast from very long ranges 700km in the many hundreds until none NATO warship left.

2)The cheap wayRussia can just send 40 x sukhoi SU-27..(and a couple of MIg-31 with long range missiles to defeat awacs)flying low to avoid detection with Kh-35 missiles. each one can carry 4 of them.. that is 40x4 = 160 antiship missiles. and launch them in salvo at near ~60km. 4 missiles against big warship and 2 against corvettes or patrol ships. Read somewhere that Aegis cannot engage planes or missiles flying very low beyond 50km. Perhaps that explain why NATO depends heavily on their Navy Airforce and Awacs to defend their warships.

3) The elegant way..Russia just send 30 Su-34s flying very low with its terrain following radar ,avoiding any detection until 40km-50km of their warships and then launch at the same time in salvo 6 x kh-31 or 3 x calibr/brahmos missiles.Both supersonic . That is 30 x 6 =180 missiles or 30 x 3 =90 using Kalibr/brahmos.

In real practice navy vs navy will not happen in the black sea ,because they can use their Airforce. a plane cost a lot less than a warship and can escort and deliver missiles very close to their enemies. For sure Russia have a big military airport near the black sea with many combat jets carrying anti-ship missiles.

Vann7 wrote:In real practice navy vs navy will not happen in the black sea ,because they can use their Airforce. a plane cost a lot less than a warship and can escort and deliver missiles very close to their enemies. For sure Russia have a big military airport near the black sea with many combat jets carrying anti-ship missiles.

There is something called submarines.Also i doubt the airforce can go in and sink ships uncontested, for sure they will have much other things at hand in a big war. It can be skirmishes not all out war. Displaying your ships in hotspots and using them in limited actions, like south Ossetia is very useful.No one really knows how a modern naval war will look like, nearest is Falklands and thats 30 years ago...I dont think eternal peace has come to the Black sea area, naval engagements is bound to happen sooner or later.

This would have been an interesting scenario if set in the 80s with the SOviet black sea fleet vs Turkish fleet

any thoughts on that by the original poster ? In the 80s a possible few changes

1-Turks have 50 or so F-16 and the Soviets have very few Mig-29s but mostly Mig-232-Black sea fleet has ships equipped with SSN-2 Styx and SSN-3b/c missile ships which are inferior to the Harpoon ( which I assume equipped Turkish ships in the 80s?) 3-How big is the Turkish sub fleet in 80s ?4-The AV MF had backfires in the pacific fleet but in the black sea fleet they had mostly Badger G and Bear G I'm assuming ?